Portland - Milwaukie Light Rail (PMLR) | Completed

[MightyAlweg]

Originally Posted by brandonpdx

^I never understood why they built the Marquam Bridge; that thing is an ugly piece of shit. Mayor Frank Ivancie has left ugly scars for the sake of the automobile all over this city.

They built the Marquam Bridge in 1966 because they needed to put the freeway on it to get it from San Diego to Seattle. It's not a pretty bridge, not the worst ever, but certainly a bit homely looking and rather unremarkable.

But then look at what Portland was like in the 1940's, 50's and 60's. The downtown area wasn't very pretty, not the worst looking city ever, but certainly a bit homely looking and rather unremarkable. The Marquam Bridge fit right in back then. It didn't scar Portland at the time, and it actually looked better than a lot of what was found downtown in the mid 20th century.

Downtown Portland Riverfront 1964

[RoseCtyRoks]

Even the good pics of the Marquam are hardly worth a second glance!

In 2015 though, when the new light rail bridge is in the foreground....then we'll have a GREAT view from this vantage point....

{ODOT photo}

[tworivers]

But then look at what Portland was like in the 1940's, 50's and 60's. The downtown area wasn't very pretty, not the worst looking city ever, but certainly a bit homely looking and rather unremarkable. The Marquam Bridge fit right in back then. It didn't scar Portland
at the time, and it actually looked better than a lot of what was found downtown in the mid 20th century.

Yeah... First of all, you toss three decades into your first sentence: three decades of massive and unfortunate changes. I don't know if you were hanging out in downtown PDX in the 40's (I wasn't) but from the pictures I've seen, and from what I've read, the urban fabric was still largely intact and was quite beautiful, including one of the largest collections of cast iron buildings anywhere. If you were referring primarily to the skyline, as seen from afar, well, it may have been homely and unremarkable back then, but I don't think much has changed in that regard -- only now the majority of old buildings have been torn down and replaced with squat, mediocre office towers. The bridge apparently caused quite a bit of civic anger when it was built because, even then, it was perceived as being ugly and unremarkable in a city that prided itself on its bridges -- this, apparently, is part of the reason why the Fremont is so thoughtfully-designed aesthetically. I don't know what you are talking about when you say that the Marquam looked better then a lot of what you would have found downtown, unless you are referring to all the new parking lots of the 50s and 60s...

[brandonpdx]

[QUOTE=JordanL;4451839]You'll never be able to simply remove I-5. Name one single instance in this entire country of a main thoroughfare interstate being torn down in the middle of a city central core.
QUOTE]

Ever heard of the Big Dig in Boston?

[MightyAlweg]

Originally Posted by tworivers

I don't know what you are talking about when you say that the Marquam looked better then a lot of what you would have found downtown, unless you are referring to all the new parking lots of the 50s and 60s...

I'm not comparing the Marquam Bridge to the grand terra cotta buildings on 5th avenue, or the fancy movie palaces on Broadway, nor am I comparing it to the lavish downtown lobbies of Frederick & Nelson or Meier & Frank you would have found in 1966. (And I still vaguely remember from the 1980's).

Even with the individual buildings of architectural merit, much of downtown Portland in the middle decades of the 20th century was a bit homely looking and rather unremarkable. Frank Sinatra or Dinah Shore never sang songs about Portland.

But I am comparing the Marquam Bridge to the rather gritty and industrial areas where the Marquam leaves the riverbank on the west side of the river and arrives on the east side, circa 1966. See my picture posted above of that area circa 1964. Compared to what was there at the time on the west side, and still is to large extent on the east side, the Marquam was an improvement.

But overall, it's not a pretty bridge, then or now. I remember talk from the late 80's of putting I-5 under the river and burying it along most of the eastern riverbank. That's not a new idea, and something that still has merit.

As for "urban fabric" in the 1940's, Portland had it. Although it wasn't the safest or prettiest fabric you would have seen! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dHmu...e=channel_page

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

This is just crazy, we have just built a light rail line, were building a streetcar line and planing to build yet another light rail line to start construction just after the end of the building of the streetcar. But we still don't have articulated Buses, please... Portland should really stop dreaming and look at its public transit ridership numbers. CO2 emissions will not be tackled this way, so I sugest that we should really stick to buses before going for the big fancy trains.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

This is just crazy, we have just built a light rail line, were building a streetcar line and planing to build yet another light rail line to start construction just after the end of the building of the streetcar. But we still don't have articulated Buses, please... Portland should really stop dreaming and look at its public transit ridership numbers. CO2 emissions will not be tackled this way, so I sugest that we should really stick to buses before going for the big fancy trains.

I disagree.

[pdxtraveler]

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

This is just crazy, we have just built a light rail line, were building a streetcar line and planing to build yet another light rail line to start construction just after the end of the building of the streetcar. But we still don't have articulated Buses, please... Portland should really stop dreaming and look at its public transit ridership numbers. CO2 emissions will not be tackled this way, so I sugest that we should really stick to buses before going for the big fancy trains.

People well never take to buses like they do to rail. I am a perfect example. Glad Portland has a great bus system but just can't get into riding them. I LOVE riding MAX and the streetcar. It pulls way more people out of cars. Buses are mainly for those that don't have the car option (this is all my own opinion).

[65MAX]

[QUOTE=brandonpdx;4455675]

Originally Posted by JordanL

You'll never be able to simply remove I-5. Name one single instance in this entire country of a main thoroughfare interstate being torn down in the middle of a city central core.
QUOTE]

Ever heard of the Big Dig in Boston?

First of all, the Big Dig didn't "remove" the freeway, it put the freeway underground.

Second, do you really want to use Boston's project as an example? A project that cost, what, 22 BILLION dollars?

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

This is just crazy, we have just built a light rail line, were building a streetcar line and planing to build yet another light rail line to start construction just after the end of the building of the streetcar. But we still don't have articulated Buses, please... Portland should really stop dreaming and look at its public transit ridership numbers. CO2 emissions will not be tackled this way, so I sugest that we should really stick to buses before going for the big fancy trains.

Mr. C, you weren't here in the '80s, but Portland already tried articulated buses. They were a maintenance nightmare and proved too unwieldy for most of Portland's bus routes (narrow streets, sharp corners, hills). Also, why do you think it has to be buses or trains, one or the other. The best transit systems have both.... they work together as a SYSTEM.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Mr. C, you weren't here in the '80s, but Portland already tried articulated buses. They were a maintenance nightmare and proved too unwieldy for most of Portland's bus routes (narrow streets, sharp corners, hills). Also, why do you think it has to be buses or trains, one or the other. The best transit systems have both.... they work together as a SYSTEM.

That's a very cheap excuse, the fact that Portland has tried some articulated Buses and failed doesn’t mean that they can't try them again and succeed. Narrow street my butt, if streets in downtown Portland were so narrow there couldn't had been streetcar and light rail in the first place, because both are much longer and need much more space to turn than any articulated bus.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Mr. C, you weren't here in the '80s, but Portland already tried articulated buses. They were a maintenance nightmare and proved too unwieldy for most of Portland's bus routes (narrow streets, sharp corners, hills). Also, why do you think it has to be buses or trains, one or the other. The best transit systems have both.... they work together as a SYSTEM.

Just to clarify, the buses were a maintenance problem because they were from Hungary, and after the Iron Curtain came apart the factories that made spare parts went belly-up; TriMet ended up having to make its own. Presumably there are other manufacturers now.

[pdxf]

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

This is just crazy, we have just built a light rail line, were building a streetcar line and planing to build yet another light rail line to start construction just after the end of the building of the streetcar. But we still don't have articulated Buses, please... Portland should really stop dreaming and look at its public transit ridership numbers. CO2 emissions will not be tackled this way, so I sugest that we should really stick to buses before going for the big fancy trains.

So I'm assuming that you reject the notion that because trains require the 'permanent' act of laying track, this entices developers to build along light rail lines since they know that the trains will always be there, and there is a permanently developed light rail stop at given intervals which create natural areas to develop properties. This is opposed to building along a bus route, which doesn't have the same level of permanence, size (bus stop vs max stop) or visibility. The light rail, at least with this line of thinking is aimed at creating higher density developments around those rail stops, not just about moving people from point to point.

You can accept or reject this notion, but I felt that one of the main reasons cited for going with rail transit has been ignored in the discussion so far.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

This is just crazy, we have just built a light rail line, were building a streetcar line and planing to build yet another light rail line to start construction just after the end of the building of the streetcar. But we still don't have articulated Buses, please... Portland should really stop dreaming and look at its public transit ridership numbers. CO2 emissions will not be tackled this way, so I sugest that we should really stick to buses before going for the big fancy trains.

Trains create new riders. Buses create new routes.

[brandonpdx]

[QUOTE=65MAX;4456758]

Originally Posted by brandonpdx

First of all, the Big Dig didn't "remove" the freeway, it put the freeway underground.

Second, do you really want to use Boston's project as an example? A project that cost, what, 22 BILLION dollars?

Right, there's 2 different conversation going on here. 1 discussing completely removing I5 and the other burying it. I was refering to burying it and using the Big Dig as an example of where it has happend before. we all know about the financial folly and I'm not comparing it fiscally, rather I'm comparing it physically.

The cost of burying I5 will be huge here as well but the impacts will be different so comparing costs between 2 cities is apples and oranges my friend.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by brandonpdx

Right, there's 2 different conversation going on here. 1 discussing completely removing I5 and the other burying it. I was refering to burying it and using the Big Dig as an example of where it has happend before. we all know about the financial folly and I'm not comparing it fiscally, rather I'm comparing it physically.

The cost of burying I5 will be huge here as well but the impacts will be different so comparing costs between 2 cities is apples and oranges my friend.

The city estimated that the cost of burying I-5 between the Rose Quarter and Terwilliger Curves to be $4.3 billion (almost exactly the cost of the CRC) in 2004 dollars, (which would be something like $6 billion in 2009 dollars).

[crow]

bury it, bury it, bury it! just having fun. I would love nothing better than to see the Marquam Bridge pulverized. The I-405 idea is good, but i don't think it has the capacity, and as well it serves as a good alternative way to get around the city.

[jaxg8r1]

Saw in the Oregonian that the first work day (Monday) of the Green Line got 17,800 riders....

Not bad...

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by MR. Cosmopolitan

That's a very cheap excuse, the fact that Portland has tried some articulated Buses and failed doesn’t mean that they can't try them again and succeed. Narrow street my butt, if streets in downtown Portland were so narrow there couldn't had been streetcar and light rail in the first place, because both are much longer and need much more space to turn than any articulated bus.

I'm not making any excuses here. You seemed to be oblivious to the fact that Portland had ever tried artics at all. Also, it's not the DOWNTOWN streets I'm talking about, it's the streets out in the neighborhoods where the buses run. There are very few routes in Portland that are amenable to articulated buses.

If Portland tries rapid bus in the future, then artics would be appropriate for that. And if we try them again, I'm sure there are more reliable sources and brands of buses available that are non-Hungarian. But they are not comparable to a train as you are trying to imply.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by crow

bury it, bury it, bury it! just having fun. I would love nothing better than to see the Marquam Bridge pulverized. The I-405 idea is good, but i don't think it has the capacity, and as well it serves as a good alternative way to get around the city.

It will probably get buried at some point... the Big Pipe project dug out a portion about the length of the East Side I-5 tunnel, and about half the width... maybe a little less...

That was done without any highway dollars at all.